It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by whyamIhere
Originally posted by bloodreviara
reply to post by nightstalker78
Well im so very glad you see it that way but as i mentioned in my
post this was the supreme court, they ruled on it, i did not say i
had a desire to drive under the influence of anything, what the
supreme court ruled was that drug check points, IE where they
stop you and search your car with no probable cause are flat
out illegal, if you got a problem with that ruling then hire a lawyer
and go argue it with them, its the only way to change it as they
seem to think it infringes on our rights, i actually do agree with
them with my whole heart though, i am not going to have my car searched
for no reason, its a waste of their time and mine, the age old if
your not guilty then you have nothing to hide excuse is one that
has been used to justify untold atrocities and i simply and
realistically cannot agree.edit on 7-7-2013 by bloodreviara because: (no reason given)
Call the Book of World Records...
This has to be the World's longest sentence.
Originally posted by HauntWok
reply to post by whyamIhere
Some History teacher needs to be hung for treason.
Ah yes, why I keep warning everyone about these constitutional extremists. This is why I associate some people with the Taliban. Quite similar.
Sorry buddy, it was the supreme court, not a state constitution. And the 14th amendment has nothing to do with traffic stops. Perhaps you should actually do a bit more research.
Driving a motor vehicle is a PRIVILEGE, not a RIGHT.
"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct." II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135
Being pulled over is not a violation of the 4th or 14th amendment or any right for that matter. The supreme court of the united States ruled that driving is a privilege, not a right.
Personal liberty -- consists of the power of locomotion, of changing situations, of removing one's person to whatever place one's inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint unless by due process of law." 1 Blackstone's Commentary 134; Hare, Constitution__.777; Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed.
Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by kimsie
Driving a motor vehicle is a PRIVILEGE, not a RIGHT.
errrr.....no.
"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct." II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135
the right to travel is not a privilege, it can only be taken away through due process.
Is it a Right for a drunken 12 year old to drive an 18 wheeler ? The hypothetical question is; where should we draw the line?
Again, you aren't getting it. You see that little caveat "unless by due process of the law" at then end there? Well guess what buddy, the law allows it. So yeah, you can cry and moan all you want, the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA disagrees with you. They have already ruled that if the state allows it YOU CAN BE PULLED OVER AT ANY TIME FOR ANY REASON IF CONDUCTED PROPERLY. en.wikipedia.org... The supreme court trumps you hard.
While acknowledging that such checkpoints infringed on a constitutional right, Chief Justice Rehnquist argued the state interest in reducing drunk driving outweighed this minor infringement.
Originally posted by raifordko
reply to post by kimsie
Your quote actually proves my point. You just don't get it.
Originally posted by kimsie
Originally posted by raifordko
reply to post by kimsie
Your quote actually proves my point. You just don't get it.
I get it Raiford. the video is a wondeful example of America in 2013, BUT if he would have rolled down the window When The Control Freak asked him to, he would have been waved thru the checkpoint.
There would have been no video of a friendly cop waving an innocent guy thru a checkpoint on ATS.
GET MY POINT?
Originally posted by Lada2000
I don't live in United States, but reading things like this on the Internet gives me the impression that America isn't quite the "Land of the Free" that the U.S. prides itself with being.
Am I right in thinking this way? Is America less free than - say - some European countries are?